In group decision-making, ignorance promotes democracy

In some cases, the presence of uninformed individuals can take control from an …

How do groups of animals make collective decisions? Last week, we learned that bees reach consensus by headbutting those with opposing views. But in many other species, the decision-making process is a bit more democratic. In cases where social animals are unrelated and have different self-interests (such as our own), contrasting opinions are common. But it can be just as common for individuals to either be uninformed about the options, or simply not care much about the decision.

Researchers have long wondered how the dynamics of decision-making work in these cases. Some evidence suggests that those who are ignorant or naïve are subject to manipulation by a loud, opinionated minority. If this is true, uninformed individuals are detrimental to democratic decision-making, since they can turn over power to a minority. However, a new study in this week's Science shows that, under certain conditions, uninformed individuals actually shift the balance toward the majority, enabling a democratic process where the majority rules.

First, the researchers created a simple computational model in which a group of virtual animals had the option of moving to one of two locations. There were few rules: virtual animals were attracted to each other and tended to travel in the same general direction. Based on these rules, the individuals acted like members of a rudimentary social group. Then, the researchers varied the number of animals that wanted to go to each location and the strength of their convictions.

In the first set of models, all the individuals had a preference for either one location or the other, with varying degrees of conviction. Not surprisingly, when the majority of animals had a strong preference to move to one location, the group moved there. Even when the majority’s preference was equal in strength to the minority’s preference, the majority won out. However, when the strength of the minority's preference was increased past a certain threshold, the minority could dictate the group’s behavior. These results suggest that an opinionated minority can win out over a majority with weaker convictions.

Things got more interesting when the researchers added animals without a preference to the model. Under these conditions, even when the minority's preference was extremely strong, the presence of the "uninformed" individuals actually returned control to the majority. The more uninformed individuals there were, the stronger this effect became (up to a point; eventually noise took over).

The researchers then used an experimental approach to ask the same questions using golden shiners, a very social species of fish known for their schooling behavior. Some fish were trained to swim to a yellow target in the tank, and some were trained to move toward a blue target. Intrinsically, the fish preferred the yellow target—even after training, their preference for the yellow target was stronger than their preference for the blue target. This created an natural way to test the researchers’ theories.

The results from these lab tests mirrored the findings of the computational model. When the minority of fish in the tank were those trained to go to the yellow target (meaning they had a strong preference for the option), they won out and the group went there. When untrained fish were introduced into the tank, however, the majority regained control, even though their preference for the blue target was weaker. When the majority of the fish in the tank were trained to go to the yellow target, the presence of untrained fish had no effect.

Under these conditions, the presence of ignorant or naïve individuals actually tends to lessen the influence of a strongly-opinionated minority. Clearly, these experiments are simplistic compared to the conditions under which many collective decisions are actually made in nature (or in our electoral system). Additionally, in this study, only two options were being considered. In real life, there are often multiple possibilities. In other words, it’s probably not realistic to predict or explain our upcoming elections with these results. But they're a good start to understanding the dynamics of collective decision-making.

Additionally, in this study, only two options were being considered. In real life, there are often multiple possibilities. In other words, it’s probably not realistic to predict or explain our upcoming elections with these results. But they're a good start to understanding the dynamics of collective decision-making.

Wait, are you saying politicians aren't elected by means of trained fish? Oh my God...

So this is why Glenn Beck, O'Riley and the RWPM are so well paid and well supported. they are the Conviction(tm). Seriously though you would think that studying the history of elections would show this anyway.

In a revised democracy, individual's votes would be weighted by a civics test at the voting booth. People who actually understand how their government works get more say than those who get bussed to the polls to ignorantly fulfill someone else's agenda.

In a revised democracy, individual's votes would be weighted by a civics test at the voting booth. People who actually understand how their government works get more say than those who get bussed to the polls to ignorantly fulfill someone else's agenda.

One can dream, anyway...

For better or for worse, that'll never happen because it's been tried and abused. See also: poll tax, literacy test. These were used to keep southern blacks from voting in the bad old days.

For better or for worse, that'll never happen because it's been tried and abused.

Well, pretty much anything involved with voting gets abused. This would of course be no different.

Quote:

See also: poll tax, literacy test. These were used to keep southern blacks from voting in the bad old days.

Hopefully we're beyond that level of bald discrimination, but I wouldn't count on it.

Nonetheless, having my researched and informed vote exactly cancelled out by someone else who does no more than blindly follow a preacher/talk-radio host/political pundit/party-line is pretty damned discouraging.

In a revised democracy, individual's votes would be weighted by a civics test at the voting booth. People who actually understand how their government works get more say than those who get bussed to the polls to ignorantly fulfill someone else's agenda.

I believe they set up something like this in that curious state, the Republic of Gondour.

For better or for worse, that'll never happen because it's been tried and abused.

Well, pretty much anything involved with voting gets abused. This would of course be no different.

Quote:

See also: poll tax, literacy test. These were used to keep southern blacks from voting in the bad old days.

Hopefully we're beyond that level of bald discrimination, but I wouldn't count on it.

Whether discrimination is the intent or not, it will almost certainly have the effect of keeping more minorities out of the polls than non-minorities. Plenty of people will scream racism. Heck, they already beat people with that stick every chance they get. Which personally, I think cheapens the very real impacts of discrimination, and false charges of racism offend me just as much as racism itself.

And the award for research most likely to be misquoted, misunderstood and otherwise abused goes to...

I worry that even Ars missed it. It's not ignorance that the tests are playing with, like the title claims. It's indifference or lack of exposure. It's research that might have bearing on the important but largely unknown problem of American helium, but has very little bearing on something like climate change or science-based science classes, where darn near everybody has already picked a camp.

Drowning strong view in noise isn't the solution. Some issues are too important to resolve with statistical diffusion. Uninformed individuals who are deciding things for the sake of the masses have a responsibility to become informed. Every member of government should be informed about every issue they vote on.

Drowning strong view in noise isn't the solution. Some issues are too important to resolve with statistical diffusion. Uninformed individuals who are deciding things for the sake of the masses have a responsibility to become informed. Every member of government should be informed about every issue they vote on.

Is this even possible? If that was all you did, perhaps. But the nuances of many things cannot even be seen on initial exposure, much less the legalese behind it (which may or may not do what you are told it would do).

Do you also believe that congress-critters should read the bills they vote on? Since this *is* their full time day job and they also have large staffs that can help, I would say that yes, they should. But I believe that most of the time not a single congress-critter voting on the bull has read any of it.

But your reference to "individuals" and "member of government" in the same paragraph has me slightly confused as to the subject, probably I just restated your text.

(typo left in, it seems more appropriate than the word I'd intended to type)

Additionally, in this study, only two options were being considered. In real life, there are often multiple possibilities. In other words, it’s probably not realistic to predict or explain our upcoming elections with these results. But they're a good start to understanding the dynamics of collective decision-making.

Wait, are you saying politicians aren't elected by means of trained fish? Oh my God...

Alligator gars I would think.

Tossing alligator gars to politicians would be an idea with obvious merit.

Additionally, in this study, only two options were being considered. In real life, there are often multiple possibilities. In other words, it’s probably not realistic to predict or explain our upcoming elections with these results. But they're a good start to understanding the dynamics of collective decision-making.

Wait, are you saying politicians aren't elected by means of trained fish? Oh my God...

Au contraire my friend. Usually in a debate there are two sides with lots of supporters. It isn't usual to have _three_ sides with lots of supporters.

For example, there are pro-abortion and anti-abortion sides, but there's no significant "sensibleabortion" side.

I would like them to do research to try to prove or disprove: "All of us are dumber than any one of us."

Intrinsically, the fish preferred the yellow target—even after training, their preference for the yellow target was stronger than their preference for the blue target.

Uh, the fish have an inherent bias and yet they're being used in this study to prove the influence of preferences?

That's irrational. Why is this study being taken seriously?

Because it reflects real life bias? For example, some people have an irrational belief in supernatural beings. You can train them in science and logic as much as you'd like, but in the end, the mindless gibberish they were infected with growing up still overrules the reality of that which they can see, touch and quantify.

I'm not sure why this outcome isn't just blatantly obvious from the maths.

Sum the values of population x opinion strength on each side, higher one wins. Adding to the population unbiased members increases population of both sides equally, meaning the side with a lower count needs a higher strength to still win out.

Did I miss something? I don't feel as thought this tells us ANYTHING about how real life works that isn't obvious at face value.

Intrinsically, the fish preferred the yellow target—even after training, their preference for the yellow target was stronger than their preference for the blue target.

Uh, the fish have an inherent bias and yet they're being used in this study to prove the influence of preferences?

That's irrational. Why is this study being taken seriously?

Because it reflects real life bias? For example, some people have an irrational belief in supernatural beings. You can train them in science and logic as much as you'd like, but in the end, the mindless gibberish they were infected with growing up still overrules the reality of that which they can see, touch and quantify.

That's a learned or cultural preference, not a biological one.

And quite ironic since your post reflects a form of religious indoctrination for yourself and you don't even realize it.

The important thing here seems to be that ignorant is being used here to mean a lack of an opinion, as opposed to its usually meaning of being dumber than a sack of bricks.

Well there's a difference between ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance is curable.

MatthiasF wrote:

Quote:

Intrinsically, the fish preferred the yellow target—even after training, their preference for the yellow target was stronger than their preference for the blue target.

Uh, the fish have an inherent bias and yet they're being used in this study to prove the influence of preferences?

That's irrational. Why is this study being taken seriously?

Because that's one way to get a majority with a weak opinion (innate tendency to respond strongly to yellow, but conditioned for blue) versus a strong one (innate tendency to respond to yellow and conditioned for yellow).

GFKBill wrote:

I'm not sure why this outcome isn't just blatantly obvious from the maths.

It did show up in their mathematical simulations, but I keep hearing that "computer models" are unreliable and that real-world data trumps it in all those climate threads.

I'm not sure why this outcome isn't just blatantly obvious from the maths.

It did show up in their mathematical simulations, but I keep hearing that "computer models" are unreliable and that real-world data trumps it in all those climate threads.

Ignoring the trolling, this seems backwards - come up with a model, then engineer a "real world" situation so carefully that it can hardly fail to verify your model. The experiment seems more a working demo of their maths than a real world observed behaviour that verifies the model.

What do you mean it could hardly have failed? It could very easily have failed if these fish didn't display the same behavior as the model. If the naive newcomers didn't push the group towards the majority, because of the majority's weak preference, that would disprove the conclusions of the model. If the naive newcomers consistently went with the fish that displayed the stronger preference regardless of that group's size, the model wouldn't have been validated. The outcome wasn't guaranteed.

Intrinsically, the fish preferred the yellow target—even after training, their preference for the yellow target was stronger than their preference for the blue target.

Uh, the fish have an inherent bias and yet they're being used in this study to prove the influence of preferences?

The passage as written in the article is confusing (and/or incorrectly stated). In the study, the "intrinsic" preference for the yellow target led to the yellow-trained fish having greater "conviction" to move toward the yellow target than the blue-trained fish had toward the blue target. This did not mean that the blue trained fish still preferred the yellow target. This allowed the researchers to play off a majority with weaker conviction against a minority with stronger conviction. As noted in the supplemental material, the inherent bias toward the yellow target should cause untrained fish to tend toward the yellow (minority) target, but this was opposite to the result actually found.

Intrinsically, the fish preferred the yellow target—even after training, their preference for the yellow target was stronger than their preference for the blue target.

Uh, the fish have an inherent bias and yet they're being used in this study to prove the influence of preferences?

The passage as written in the article is confusing (and/or incorrectly stated). In the study, the "intrinsic" preference for the yellow target led to the yellow-trained fish having greater "conviction" to move toward the yellow target than the blue-trained fish had toward the blue target. This did not mean that the blue trained fish still preferred the yellow target. This allowed the researchers to play off a majority with weaker conviction against a minority with stronger conviction. As noted in the supplemental material, the inherent bias toward the yellow target should cause untrained fish to tend toward the yellow (minority) target, but this was opposite to the result actually found.

Yes. Either my reading comprehension ability has declined precipitously, or the third-last and second last paragraphs are inconsistent.

Democracy, by itself, is nothing more than mob rule. It reduces morality to whatever the largest mob happens to believe at any one time. A constitution is needed to define boundaries, primarily to protect the minority groups from the majority - or the public from the government. The smallest minority - and the most at risk - is, of course, the individual.

I'm dismayed by people who see pure democracy as some kind of holy grail. Under a purely democratic system, anything goes just as long as enough people desire it. If the cultural environment changed in the future so that a majority of people in a purely democratic society believed Jews to be the cause of all the trouble in the world and that they should be eliminated, then it would be so. Yet still I hear people talk as if the majority decision is always the right one and as if democracy were some kind of infallible machine which always produces the right course of action.

Kate Shaw Yoshida / Kate is a science writer for Ars Technica. She recently earned a dual Ph.D. in Zoology and Ecology, Evolutionary Biology and Behavior from Michigan State University, studying the social behavior of wild spotted hyenas.